Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/mce-inject/mce-inject.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/mce-inject/mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: mce-inject allows to inject machine check errors on the software level into a running Linux kernel. This is intended for validation of the kernel machine check handler. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127876356
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8514436 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2338093-mce-inject/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08514436-mce-inject/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Note: for this # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin sed -i 's:$(prefix)/sbin:%{_bindir}:g' Makefile you can also sed it to %{_sbindir} and use %{_sbindir} in files - but moving it to %{_bindir} just so the file is always in the same directory on new and old Fedora release is fine too
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2338093-mce-inject/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2123 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpfft7h0bm')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mce-inject-debuginfo-0^20241112git-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwoqy7idh')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 mce-inject.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mce-inject/README 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/cpu/mce/mce-inject.git/snapshot/mce-inject-ca81c1dbed5c7e30fe79d44953ccfeaab98d2b4f.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f3ff48dd240317a74ee45855f4265e8565d344217ecf85efe778b477f7a3288d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f3ff48dd240317a74ee45855f4265e8565d344217ecf85efe778b477f7a3288d Requires -------- mce-inject (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- mce-inject: mce-inject mce-inject(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2338093 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, R, Python, Java, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mce-inject
FEDORA-2025-c30e7dbcc1 (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c30e7dbcc1
FEDORA-2025-c30e7dbcc1 (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-87054c0cd1 (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-87054c0cd1
FEDORA-2025-703b2fe8a8 (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-703b2fe8a8
FEDORA-2025-ebaa37e3c6 (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ebaa37e3c6
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-addde912ef (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-addde912ef
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-389dab0d6f (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-389dab0d6f
FEDORA-2025-87054c0cd1 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-87054c0cd1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-87054c0cd1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-703b2fe8a8 (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-ebaa37e3c6 (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-389dab0d6f (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-addde912ef (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-87054c0cd1 (mce-inject-0^20241112git-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.